H Beesley1, C Holcombe2, S L Brown3, P Salmon3. 1. Division of Clinical Psychology, Liverpool University, Ground Floor Whelan Building, Quadrangle, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, L69 3GB England, UK; Liverpool Psychology Service for Cancer, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Prescot Street, Liverpool, L7 8XP England, UK. Electronic address: h.c.beesley@liv.ac.uk. 2. Breast Unit, Linda McCartney Centre, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Prescot Street, Liverpool, L7 8XP England, UK. 3. Division of Clinical Psychology, Liverpool University, Ground Floor Whelan Building, Quadrangle, Brownlow Hill, Liverpool, L69 3GB England, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although controversial, use of contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) is increasing. It is not clear whether reduction of objective breast cancer risk or other factors determine decisions for CRRM. We aimed to identify factors that influence these decisions by scrutinising how decisions were made in one centre. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 60 patients considered for CRRM in one centre. Data sources, analysed using qualitative methods, were records of routine psychological assessment, surgeon letters, case-notes and interviews with four surgeons. RESULTS: Perceptions of objective risk did not generally drive patients' requests or surgeons' decisions. Instead, CRRM appeared to be mainly performed for psychological reasons: to reduce patients' cancer worry and to achieve cosmetic benefits. CONCLUSION: Routine use of the term 'risk-reducing' surgery masks a clinical decision which usually reflects influences other than risk. As CRRM is often carried out for psychological reasons it follows that evidence about its psychosocial outcomes is needed.
INTRODUCTION: Although controversial, use of contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy (CRRM) is increasing. It is not clear whether reduction of objective breast cancer risk or other factors determine decisions for CRRM. We aimed to identify factors that influence these decisions by scrutinising how decisions were made in one centre. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 60 patients considered for CRRM in one centre. Data sources, analysed using qualitative methods, were records of routine psychological assessment, surgeon letters, case-notes and interviews with four surgeons. RESULTS: Perceptions of objective risk did not generally drive patients' requests or surgeons' decisions. Instead, CRRM appeared to be mainly performed for psychological reasons: to reduce patients' cancer worry and to achieve cosmetic benefits. CONCLUSION: Routine use of the term 'risk-reducing' surgery masks a clinical decision which usually reflects influences other than risk. As CRRM is often carried out for psychological reasons it follows that evidence about its psychosocial outcomes is needed.
Authors: Shoshana M Rosenberg; Karen Sepucha; Kathryn J Ruddy; Rulla M Tamimi; Shari Gelber; Meghan E Meyer; Lidia Schapira; Steven E Come; Virginia F Borges; Mehra Golshan; Eric P Winer; Ann H Partridge Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jada G Hamilton; Margaux C Genoff; Melissa Salerno; Kimberly Amoroso; Sherry R Boyar; Margaret Sheehan; Megan Harlan Fleischut; Beth Siegel; Angela G Arnold; Erin E Salo-Mullen; Jennifer L Hay; Kenneth Offit; Mark E Robson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Patricia I Jewett; Rachel I Vogel; Mary C Schroeder; Joan M Neuner; Anne H Blaes Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: David W Lim; Helene Retrouvey; Isabel Kerrebijn; Kate Butler; Anne C O'Neill; Tulin D Cil; Toni Zhong; Stefan O P Hofer; David R McCready; Kelly A Metcalfe Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-04-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Mary C Schroeder; Yu-Yu Tien; Lillian M Erdahl; Ingrid M Lizarraga; Brahmendra R Viyyuri; Sonia L Sugg Journal: Surgery Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Patricia A Parker; Susan K Peterson; Yu Shen; Isabelle Bedrosian; Dalliah M Black; Alastair M Thompson; Jonathan C Nelson; Sarah M DeSnyder; Robert L Cook; Kelly K Hunt; Robert J Volk; Scott B Cantor; Wenli Dong; Abenaa M Brewster Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Reshma Jagsi; Sarah T Hawley; Kent A Griffith; Nancy K Janz; Allison W Kurian; Kevin C Ward; Ann S Hamilton; Monica Morrow; Steven J Katz Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 16.681
Authors: Ingrid M Lizarraga; Mary C Schroeder; Ismail Jatoi; Sonia L Sugg; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Laurel Hoeth; Elizabeth A Chrischilles Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 5.344